Talk:1995 Japanese Grand Prix/Archive 1

Moreno
If Moreno was unable to take the start due to gearbox problems on the Forti, how did he complete one lap and is merely listed as Retired, rather than DNS as with Aguri Suzuki's Ligier? Not only that, but how is he placed ahead of Morbidelli's Footwork, which did start the race? The359 (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * According to he didn't take the start, but according to  and the official F1 site, he completed a lap before retiring. The first source is inaccurate/wrong in this case. Should I rectify the article, and leave an incline note stating that the gale force source (in this case) is wrong? D.M.N. (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just simply ignore the bad source. It also makes no mention of Morbidelli's spin or of Aguri not taking the start, so it seems to be missing elements. The359 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I got down a video of the race from the BBC coverage that I have, and it clearly shows (just after as Schumacher is going round the Degners on lap 1) Moreno being reversed into the garage, after not starting from the pitlane. Any chance I could reference it to the BBC coverage of the race, or would I have to go with online, accurate sources. D.M.N. (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try and find a way to make it sound better Whammies Were Here 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, some of the stuff is accurate, and some is not from the one link provided. I am tempted to delete whatever is linking that to the article, and I think its good, but I want a 2nd opinion to make sure that would be the right thing to do. Whammies Were Here 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a good thing to do. [This source is only inaccurate for the Moreno point, I can safely say that the rest of it from that source is pretty accurate. If you like, I'll give you an example of something that's right in that source, and entirely correct in another source. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, any help is good help :) Whammies Were Here 22:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. It says Alesi retired on Lap 24. So does this source (see results table). I think it's a case of the Gale Force ref is just wrong in that one case to do with Moreno. Moreno was one of the backmarkers, and never got hardly any TV time, so marking it down wrong is an easy mistake to make I guess. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but I would figure with the article being put up for GA, I figured all the little details would count (and looking over the article in general, I think its pretty spot on for it, minus that concern). Thanks :) 22:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! D.M.N. (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review
Rather belatedly then, but as promised, my PR. As ever these are my opinions only - happy to be challenged on anything I've mentioned.


 * "Schumacher maintained his form from the previous round, finishing in first place in the first practice session lasting an hour and 45 minutes, held under dry conditions on Friday morning." - Not clear if MS lasted 1:45 or the session (to an unfamiliar reader). Needs to be reworded somehow (...in the first practice session which lasted an hour and 45 minutes and was held under dry...?)
 * Good point. To me it sounds like an hour and 45, but as you rightly say to an unfamiliar reader it may not. I've reworded the sentence, in due process splitting it into two. Is this any better: "Both practice sessions lasted an hour and 45 minutes, with the first practice session held under dry conditions on Friday morning. Schumacher maintained his form from the previous round, finishing in first place in the first session." - D.M.N. (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah that sounds better. AlexJ (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "second practice session on Saturday morning, which lasted for an hour and 45 minutes." - So same as the first session? Think an 'also' lasted would sound better here.
 * Yep. Added "also" between "which lasted". D.M.N. (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You've now covered this earlier on by saying both sessions lasted 1hr45. AlexJ (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've now removed the ", which also lasted for an hour and 45 minutes" bit as a result. D.M.N. (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Schumacher clinched his tenth pole position of his career, in his Benetton B195 with a time of 1:38.023.[1][2][13]" - Three refs is a bit overkill. I'd suggest that only the 10th pole of his career fact needs a citation here (his quali time is already refd. in the table)
 * Probably. I put three sources there as it's one of the main points in the article, but as you say his quali time is referenced in the table, so only the 10th pole part needs sourcing! Removed the other two sources, left [1] (Chicane F1) in that place. D.M.N. (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The car was not ready for Saturday qualifying, meaning he never set a time, leaving him at the back of the grid." - Bit 'choppy'. Suggest something like "The car wasn't ready for Saturday qualifying, so he was unable to set a time leaving him at the back of the grid."
 * Reworded to your suggestion. D.M.N. (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Aguri Suzuki in the Ligier was another driver to have a big crash, but his was worse than Blundell's, leaving him hospitalized with one broken rib.[4][12]" - I feel the facts can speak for themselves in this case, negating the need to emphasise it was a big crash. The reader can deduce this from the fact it left him hospitalised.
 * Disagree. I'm pretty sure despite the fact that it was a "big crash", the reader would be left wondering whether he was put into hospital or not. I could call Timo Glock's Melbourne accident or even Hamilton's crash from Nurburgring last year "big crash" but they never wen to hospital. Removing the bit about the hospital in my view would be leaving the reader to speculate what happened to him, whether he went to the hospital, or whether the FIA told him not to race etc. D.M.N. (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, perhaps wasn't 100% clear here - I meant to take out the word "big" and leave the bit about hospitalisation in the article. As you say, you can work out from the the injuries that it was a big accident, so you don't need to spell it out. There's some guideline that I can't find at the moment that advises against using words like "big" (how big is big?).
 * Thanks for clarifying. I've removed "big" - big can mean anything from, well - I guess it can mean anything! :D D.M.N. (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Roberto Moreno in his Forti also never took the start as his car was suffering from a gearbox problem.[16][17]" - didn't take the start as opposed to never took
 * Reworded, but "didn't" is a contraction against WP guidelines, so it'll be "did not take". There's a minor problem to do with Moreno and the results table. The results table on all websites to do with Moreno, as they say he completed a lap when he clearly did not. Having seen a YouTube video of the BBC broadcast, I can clearly say that Moreno did not complete a lap and that the results tables on all websites for that point are wrong. I can't provide a link in the article though, can I? D.M.N. (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't provide a link, but you can reference the video. Something like There's also the option of giving an approx timecode with |time= This is the time from the start of the programme (Start of video 1/14) so as the section you want is probably in 2/14 or 3/14 you'll need to remember to add 10 or 20 minutes to the time given on the YT video. Also I suggest you round it to the previous 30 seconds (e.g. 23:24 would become 23:00) as not all recordings will share identical times. 20:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. It occured at about 08:30 in Part 2, so 10:00 + 08:00 is 18:30, so I've put the time in the article as between 18:00 and 19:00. D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Due to the damp track, all drivers opted to start on wet tyres." - 2nd sentence in a row to start "Due to"
 * Reworded to "All drivers opted to start on wet tyres as the track was still damp from the morning rain" D.M.N. (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Schumacher pitted on lap ten for dry tyres, handing the lead to Häkkinen for a lap before the latter also pitted." - Repetition of pitted. Perhaps change the first instance to "Schumacher made a pit stop on lap ten"
 * Reworded to your version. D.M.N. (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Three laps after taking his stop-and-go penalty, Alesi changed to slick tyres as the track was beginning to dry.[4][14][17] - Major Point:Layout gets a bit messy here - Alesi jumps the start & is penalised. MS & MH pit on lap 10. Then we go back to 3 laps after Alesi got his stop and go. We've gone from L10 to L7.
 * Made major changes to layout. D.M.N. (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional Point: "He was helped when Alesi was given a 10-sec stop-go penalty for jumping the start. Jean pitted. A lap later he came back in for slick tyres."GrandPrix.com Who's right here?
 * Ouch. YouTube video from BBC broadcast (obvious no no in article, but just to see....) (from Lap 1 to about 5) - Alesi pits (08:15); (from Lap 5 to about 11) - Alesi pits (02:17 ONLY). It looks like what GrandPrix.com has got it wrong (unless TV pictures failed to pick it up), but Alesi only pitted twice in the first part and the article reflects that. D.M.N. (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Minor Point: There's three citations, and only two facts in that sentence, both of which may be covered by the same source.
 * I've removed the GrandPrix.com source from that part as it appears to be incorrect. D.M.N. (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "He was only six seconds behind Schumacher when his Ferrari 412T1 suffered a transmission failure on lap 24." - Again, for the casual reader, there's some ambiguity with who "his Ferrari" is referring to. (Yes, I know they should get that MS is in the Benneton by now & it's clarified next sentence)
 * In any case I've changed "He" at the start of the sentence to "Alesi". D.M.N. (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Williams drivers' seemed destined to finish second and third, Hill ran off the circuit at Spoon Curve two laps after his pitstop, damaging his front-wing in the process and rejoining the circuit in fourth." - circuit is used twice in quick succession, could use track the second time?
 * Changed. D.M.N. (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Hill pitted to replace the damaged wing rejoining fifth,[4] but was then given a ten-second stop-and-go penalty for speeding in the pitlane.[18]" - Rejoining is used for the second time in about 10 words.
 * Changed the first rejoined. I've also reworded the above point, so it now reads: "The Williams drivers' seemed destined to finish second and third, but Hill ran off the circuit at Spoon Curve two laps after his pitstop. He damaging his front-wing in the process, recovering back onto the track in fourth." I've split the sentence up, as the first bit sounded a little confusing after re-reading it back. D.M.N. (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Coulthard then duplicated his team-mate's mistake" - To really nitpick, dictionary defs, Duplicate - being the same as another; identical (not comparable). Comparable - that which is similar (to). It may therefore be better to say something along the lines of "Coulthard made the same mistake as his team-mate"
 * Yes, you are nitpicking! (Sarcasm.) I think we can blame Diniz for that! Na, I've changed it to your version. I'm pretty sure Diniz wasn't intending to do any harm! :) D.M.N. (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It really was a minor thing, but also something that may have come up at FA, so better now it's fixed!


 * "causing him to lose control and beached his car in the gravel trap." - either "and he beached his car" or better just "and beach his car"
 * Changed to last version. D.M.N. (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The win, along with Johnny Herbert's third place and the retirements of Hill and Coulthard, gave Benetton the 1995 Constructors' Championship." - We haven't mentioned JH since the lead, so perhaps he could be introduced as MS's team-mate.
 * That makes me wonder whether I should outline the lead positions round about lap 36 after the second round of stops and before Williams' errors. Possibly maybe have "With the second set of pitstops completed, Schumacher led the grand prix, ...... ahead of ......" and then outline the top five/six, then go onto say "At this stage, the rain began to fall again, but only at the Spoon Curve end of the circuit...." - The reader otherwise may be left speculating, well what did Herbert do? Was he involved in any battles? etc.. What do you think about me possibly doing that (obviously with sources; if internet sources aren't available, I could source from the TV broadcast [the race is on YouTube as mentioned earlier, so I should be able to record the positions and reference the BBC TV broadcast]) D.M.N. (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a mid-race roundup of the major positions may help put later events into context. AlexJ (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Hill on the other-hand was very disappointed about the race and the season as a whole. Hill said afterwards: "I have never... - Does that sound better as "Hill was very disappointed about the race and the season as a whole saying afterwards: I have never..." OTOH sounds a bit 'magaziney' to me.
 * Now you mention it, OTOHH does sound magaziney, I guess. Reworded to yuor version. D.M.N. (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Many motor racing experts..." - From WP:AWW "If there is a genuine opinion make the preface more specific. Who are these people? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? How many is "some"?" Perhaps specify opinions of some other people to add to AJ's comment. Even ignoring the guideline, the source doesn't actually say "[For] many motor racing experts", it just says "for many".
 * Uh. Having done a few quick Google search, I can't find no other praise for Alesi's Japan performance. Could I change it to: "1980 Formula One World Champion Alan Jones was one of the few people to praise Alesi's performance, stating that it "will go down as one of the great drives in Grand Prix racing." D.M.N. (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't tell if it was only a few people either. It might have been praised in every race report, but with most copies of these now in landfill, it's hard to check. Best solution is to just use AJ's quote, something like "Alesi's performance earned the praise of 1980 Formula One World Champion Alan Jones, who stated that it "will go down as one of the great drives in Grand Prix racing."". Perhaps also, you could ask Diniz if he could check in his '95 Autocourse if anything quotable is mentioned about Alesi's drive in it. AlexJ (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked Diniz on his talkpage to have a look through his Autocourse to see if he can find anything on it. For now, I've changed it to your version. D.M.N. (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it then. The article as far as I can tell covers the race in detail, with all the major points that I remember are in there. Feel free to ask me to clarify any of the points I've made above. AlexJ (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta very much! D.M.N. (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

GAN on hold
Leave me a note when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Despite the fact that the Drivers' Championship" - change "despite the fact" to "although" or similar
 * Changed. D.M.N. (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3rd paragraph of Background section has a fair bit of jargon...I'm big on sports, so most of it made sense to me, but others might not be. Stuff like "minor excursions into the gravel trap", etc.
 * I've reworded the example you've given along with another few rewords in that paragraph, but I can't really find any other examples of jargon (maybe that's because I'm a fan of F1, I don't know!) - could you possibly pinpoint some other places where there is jargon? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks OK now. If there are any relevant wlinks to articles about the terminology of F1, they could help there, but it's not a huge deal. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Schumacher was joined on the front-row by Alesi who was eight tenths behind Schumacher" - redundancies. Change the first to "He" and second to "him"
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Despite Häkkinen's solid performance in qualifying, his team-mate, Mark Blundell had a disappointing qualifying." - I don't see the connection between MH doing well and MB doing poorly
 * They are team-mates, they are the two McLaren drivers in the race. Observers tend to compare performances between team-mate, like say "He did well, but he didn't" etc. D.M.N. (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why the massive quoting on ref 13?
 * The article for that ref is very long, the bit that is relevant to this article is summed up in a single paragraph, hence the quote. D.M.N. (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "The drivers took to the track four and a half hours before the race start for a thirty-minute warm-up session" - They were on the road for 4.5 hours but only did a 0.5 hour warm-up? Confused...
 * The warm-up took place from 09:30-10:00 (00:30-01:00 UK Time), four and a half hours before the race began, which was at 13:00 (05:00 UK Time). That's the way they had the schedule, I have no idea why though. Does it need to be reworded in the article - the way you commented sounds like you thought they were on the circuit for 4 and a half hours. D.M.N. (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see your point. A reword would be good if you could. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-PR comments
Some things to look at: Hope that list helps - feel free to give me a shout if you need anything more. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't have bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD.
 * You've contradicted yourself. You can have bold links in the lead only if it's the title. I think you should compare this article first line to the UK example given on the WP:LEAD section. D.M.N. (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Link Formula One in the lead.
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "for the Benetton team" would be clearer for non experts who think Benetton is just the clothing label.
 * Possibly. However a link is provided when Benetton is first mentioned in lead and first section to the Benetton Formula article, so I think that's pretty clear. Normally, things are linked on first mention. D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Link List of Formula One World Constructors' Champions in the lead for constructors' champs. Link similarly to List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions.
 * Linked both on first mention. D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is ref [2] in infobox between value and units for the distance?
 * I have no idea, quite frankly. It's the way the template is done. I can't do much about that. D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I worked on the infobox design in the past and can confirm it's a design restriction that's 'at fault' (the distance unit is automatically appended to ensure consistency among articles). I don't actually see the need for a cite there - the No. of laps is already referenced in several other places (cite 3 in the lead, and through the results table amongst others) and the distance can be checked using basic maths. The only infobox information that may need a citation IMO is the official name and the weather. AlexJ (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I put the ref there for the "194.245 mi / 310.792 km" bit. D.M.N. (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "clinched the title at the previous round" surely in the previous round?
 * Yep. Fixed. D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarify that Aida circuit is in Japan.
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "penultimate" used three times in first two paras of Background, gets a bit samey.
 * Reworded the third mention of "penultimate" at the start of second para. IMO, it's notable to know that it's the penultimate round in the championship paragraph, but not really needed in the second para. I've changed it to: "There were two driver changes heading into the sixteenth round of the championship."
 * "two tenths quicker" of a second (got to appeal to non-experts here). And fix any others similarly.
 * Clarify. So you think I should (just so that I don't do something different) change mentions from "two tenths quicker" (or variations) to "two tenths of a second quicker"? I'm happy to make the change, I just want clarification. D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that since you're pushing for FAC, you'll need to make it clear to non F1 enthusiasts and so making it 100% clear and unambiguous is important. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "an impressive performance" POV.
 * Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Despite both Williams' cars being in the top ten, both Hill and Coulthard went off into the gravel during the second practice session.[12]" isn't this clause the wrong way around? Despite them going into the gravel, they still made the top ten.
 * "Despite the Williams' cars going off into the gravel, both Hill and Coulthard made the top ten." - reworded, but I think "both" could me earlier in the sentence. What do you think? D.M.N. (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you could say both the Williams' cars and then just, Hill and Coulthard... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Link Pole position.
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "his sold performance"? I guess you mean solid which would be POV.
 * Yes, it is meant to be solid! But, it's irrelevant as it's POV. Removed that little phrase. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Saturday Practice" why is Practice capitalised?
 * It's not meant to be, and is inconsistent with other examples e.g. "Saturday qualifying" etc. Practice now not captilised. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * " car wasn't ready" avoid contractions so "was not".
 * Done per MOS. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Benetton image caption is a fragment so no full stop needed.
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "on slicks" - jargon, needs explanation, or appropriate linking.
 * Linked to Slick tire on first mention (middle of second para. in race section) . D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "drivers' seemed destined to finish" crystal balling.
 * Removed phrase so that it simply says "The Williams drivers' were second and third..." D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Twenty seconds behind Schumacher, Häkkinen finished second in his McLaren." flip it so Hakkinen finished second, 20 seconds behind...
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Post-Race heading should be Post-race per WP:HEAD.
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alan Jones points to a disambiguation page.
 * Pointed to right place now. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Any reason why the tables shouldn't be sortable?
 * I really can''t see the advantage of having it sortable IMO. If it was made sortable in this article, it would have to be made sortable in all the rest of the Formula One race report articles (750+ of them), to make all of the articles consistent. If you feel strongly about it, I will make a post at WT:F1 to get other opinions on it. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not a big issue. There's probably no real benefit to it being sortable, just wondered as it'd be virtually for free (except for having to use sortname for the drivers).  Forget I ever mentioned it!  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is Lap capitalised in the table?
 * Which table are you looking at, the Qualifying table or Race table? If you're looking at the "+1 Lap" bits in the Race table, I agree, Lap probably shouldn't be capitalised. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah the +1 Lap bits. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "18:00 - 19:00" etc in the references should use en-dash to separate them, so 18:00–19:00 is appropriate.
 * Done. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would now go to PR safe in the knowledge that you've done a really good job here. Let me know if you want me to contribute at any point in the process between here and FA.  All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need to go to PR. I went to PR before GA and got some good comments. I've also had already quite a bit of comments on this page in response to improving the article. I really believe that I could jump straight to FAC. I cannot see any glaring problems that could make anyone go "strong oppose" in the FAC. D.M.N. (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right. Go for it.  Thanks for the barnstar by the way.  Let me know when you're at FAC and I'll lend a hand... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)